Why didn't we have as many people protesting the Clinton policy on Iraq as we do the Bush policy? If 500,000 people starve to death because of the policy we sign, how is that any bit more humane than going in and killing them with guns and bombs as well as breaking down their government into an anarchy state. It should raise some questions, especially when the majority dying were children.
2007-03-09 10:29:38 · 7 answers · asked by Alan M 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Clinton turned a blind eye to the oil embargo even though he knew Saddam was selling illegal oil It did not bother him that the money went to Saddam's palaces & not for food for his people. He even gave Saddem 72 hours notice we were going to bomb.SOME COMMANDER//
2007-03-09 11:29:53 · answer #1 · answered by BUTCH 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
more revision of history, I see.
The policies effecting Irag during the Clinton Presidency, were UN policies resulting from Bush the First's Persian Gulf War.
Clinton's mistake, if any, was to go along with the GOP congress and to continue the UN/George Bush Sr. policies.
2007-03-09 18:44:53 · answer #2 · answered by Jack Chedeville 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Great point. I say we forget about the current war and protest Bill Clinton.
2007-03-09 18:36:54 · answer #3 · answered by socrates 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Clinton's policy was to do nothing, which is part of the reason why we are in this position today....
2007-03-09 18:39:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Your living in the past again
2007-03-09 18:42:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
They are all the same only looking out for themselves not giving a dam about others nor if others even have any money or even care.Mostly because they give money to people that have not earned it nor have they worked for, it take myself for an example!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-03-09 18:34:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
keep watching the news. and drink your koolaid.
2007-03-09 18:32:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋